Bobby has been sending me some interesting links to philosophers/scientists making very interesting points. This is my response to one of those links.
Since the evidence is unclear at this point (although they keep insisting the evidence absolutely proves that point, said evidence is woefully inadequate to draw a final conclusion) what would compel an otherwise intelligent, even powerful, human being to decide that he has no free will, has no choice, and is not only a machine but a totally unintelligent machine which only manages to delude itself into its belief system, that is, the concept that there is an individual standing there thinking and saying these things.
This is understandable position for a dangerous individual who is causing great harm to society. He could argue it’s not my fault. I can’t help myself. I have no ability to control anything. I don’t even really exist.* Again, however, this seems a very strange position for a highly respected and influential member of society to take. This is all the more true when you look at the passion with which they defend this position. It is not, in their minds, sufficient to believe it themselves or even to share this belief with those who agree. No! They must evangelize. They must spread the good word that none of us actually exist, that we are not real, that we have no free will and are completely subject to the unfeeling will of reductionist mathematical physics.
As I listened to this presentation, I was suddenly struck by that what should have been obvious from the very first time I asked myself the question. They are true believers. Evidence is not valued by them because evidence threatens the possibility that their true belief just might possibly not be correct. This is not to say that that belief is necessarily wrong, although, obviously, I think it is. Instead, it explains why they are so determined to degrade their own status so as to present themselves as no more conscious or capable of free will than a rock rolling in a stream or a maple seed fluttering in the breeze.
You might ask, why then would intelligent people who are so capable of an unusually large measure of control in their lives be so determined to deny that they have any? What, exactly, is that explanation? I believe, and this is the greatest insight that occurred to me while listening to this presentation, that this is because they are in fact identical down at the most basic emotional level with the creationists and science deniers.
They do not deny science, to be sure. Yet, although they are excellent scientists, when it comes to this philosophic issue, they transform into true believers for whom evidence, science, and logic are mere enemies of their deep rooted faith. Remember that young earth creationists also insist that science is on their side. If you simply Google young earth creationism you will quickly find a large number of articles and YouTube presentations declaring that coal seams prove Noah’s flood or that fossils and even science in general proves Noah’s flood. It is absurd nonsense, but it is affirmed with the same passion with which of these highly skilled and normally very logical scientists who usually develop conclusions based firmly on the data now devote themselves to contorting the data to fit their preconception. Again, exactly the way creations do.
The greatest insight which dawned on me today was that the reason for doing this is exactly the same as that of any true believer, including the creationists. It is the need for certainty. We live in a very uncertain, chaotic world. Even that which should be predictable if you know everything is subject to chaos theory wherein even the tiniest variation will make a radical change in the ultimate outcome. Just as so many people turn to conspiracy theories and blind religious faith in order to gain some sense of sanity and order in our so disordered and unpredictable universe, these scientists are turning to reductionist particle physics in order to create a structure for our universe which, if not desirable, is at least predictable. As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be.
Better an unpleasant certainty than the fear of the bleak, dark, and unknown forest, or, as we have all heard so many times, better the devil you know than the devil you don’t.
This has been an issue which has puzzled me so greatly and so deeply for so very long. Why did I suddenly realize it in the middle of Kaufman's talk? I don’t know. I don’t even remember exactly what he was saying at the moment I realized it. Of course, his talk was declaring that there are things greater than mere mathematical reductionism and utterly predictable classical physics, I was thinking about the topic thanks to his insights, but at what exact point I suddenly realized this, I cannot say. Now that I have realized it, it seems so blatantly obvious I wonder how I could have been so dimwitted as to not see it from the very beginning. I can only turn as a defense to the brilliant Thomas Huxley who, upon reading Darwin’s theory of natural selection, is purported to have declared “Why didn’t I think of that?”
Sometimes the most insightful and, in the case of Darwin, brilliant insights are blatantly obvious…after someone finally realizes them.
*This also fits with the opening of Sapolsky’s first lecture (which I also enjoyed very much. I intend to watch the rest of his course). As he spoke I was struck by the memory of an interesting article I read some years back. One of the terrifying events of the past, now unfortunately all too common, was when a sniper took over a tower at, I believe, the University of Texas, and began randomly shooting people. As I recall, he was the individual that was the subject of this later article. The point is that an individual, whoever he was, was changing from a highly respected and healthy member of society into something very strange. He eventually did commit murders and I’m fairly certain he was the sniper. After his death it was discovered that he had written a request for an autopsy after his demise. He felt something was wrong with his brain. Surprisingly, or unsurprisingly, the autopsy revealed a large tumor which was interfering with his higher brain functions.
He knew that something was wrong with him. He didn’t know the cause but he could feel his sense of self fading away. He could feel the sense of free will fading away. As you know, my own belief is that we do have free will but it is very much constrained by our biology and the uncaring laws of reductionist mathematical physics. That is bleak. That is indeed a dark and terrifying forest. However, there is a light within that forest, and the light is our sense of self, our sense of free will, at our struggle to maintain those against the forces of a universe that doesn’t care about us in any way, manner, or form.
No comments:
Post a Comment